Peer support for eating disorders in Canada: program user perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evidence for the value of peer support for eating disorders (EDs) is growing. Peer support is not a replacement for treatment, but can provide hope for recovery, enhance motivation for treatment, and increase feelings of connectedness and belonging for those experiencing EDs. In this study, we explored peer mentees’ experiences of peer support for EDs to better understand the impact of peer support and its role in the Canadian treatment and support continuum. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 20 people who had received peer support (group, one-on-one, or chat) and conducted a reflexive thematic analysis through a critical realist lens. We developed four themes. Participants described the importance of connecting with others who had “been there,” which helped generate a sense of belonging and connectedness. They also highlighted aspects of the peer support “container” that needed to be in place, such as guidelines for groups and agreements for one-on-one mentoring. When peer support was delivered well, participants described how it helped them help themselves through increasing motivation, communication skills, and other coping skills. Finally, participants described the unique role of peer support within the treatment continuum, as a modality that was accessible, free, and delivered in a way that focused on the whole person. Together, our findings illustrate the value of peer support and considerations for enabling effective and safe peer support delivery. Peer support can provide hope for recovery, help people feel more motivated to engage in treatment, and generate a sense of belonging for those experiencing EDs. In this study, we sought to understand how peer mentees experienced peer support for EDs. We also wanted to know what role(s) they thought peer support served within the Canadian treatment and support continuum. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 20 people who had received peer support (group, one-on-one, or chat). We developed four themes using a qualitative analysis approach called reflexive thematic analysis. Participants described the importance of connecting with others who had “been there.” This helped them feel less isolated and more connected to others with lived experience. They also described several things that needed to be in place for peer support to work, including guidelines for groups and agreements for one-on-one mentoring. If these things were in place, peer support could help people learn to help themselves; for instance, participants shared that they felt more motivated and developed stronger coping and communication skills. In terms of the role of peer support, participants shared that it was an accessible and free option, and one that made them feel seen as a whole person. Together, our findings illustrate the value of peer support and considerations for enabling effective and safe peer support delivery.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".